[Cailean]

I'm torn on the 'legitimate' ownership of software issue... a colleague of mine theorized that Adobe, for example, doesn't mind - and in fact encourages, piracy of Photoshop so that young folks can learn it and then when it comes time for employment, if all these young graphic designers are Photoshop-fluent, the employer is bound to purchase several licences... etc.

I'm not sure I buy that theory entirely but it kinda makes sense. Photoshop is clearly not priced for the general consumer. I don't mind ripping off Adobe too much (I have an illegit copy of Acrobat), particularly when so many programmers are willing to hand out their source code for free...

[dewy]

That sounds a lot like one members theory on Sub $1000 DSLR camera, it is that camera makers will sell cheaper less featured cameras and once they start using ti and go buy accessoried they lock them into their system then they will go on and buy bigger/better/dearer models. kinda smart if you ask me

[Cailean]

Except that illegally obtaining a D70 is a little different than pirating a copy of PS!! :o

[adam]

Sounds like "I'll buy the cd after I download it"

[Rufus]

Except that illegally obtaining a D70 is a little different than pirating a copy of PS!! :o

No it isnt!

Both are the product of a companies time, manpower, manufacturing and marketing.
Both are expensive.
Both are tools.
Both can be stolen.
The difference is that the widespread use of stolen software makes it appear acceptable.

Just like (in a different discussion), SSM is becoming acceptable. :o Doesnt make it right, does it?

[gd]

I'm going to take a punt and say that Caliean meant that it's probably more difficult to obtain a stolen d70 than a copy of PS.

I don't think stealing is legal yet?

[Rufus]

Yeah, probably so, actually.

You know, if you folks could see the way I deliver these messages, (that is, the intention behind them), you'd either laugh uproariously, or chase me with an axe, 'cos I dont necessarily mean what I say at all...................

[Cailean]

Of course theft is theft... my point was that to steal a D70, you'd have to walk out of store with one... stealing software is much easier and, therefore, "different"

Just like (in a different discussion), SSM is becoming acceptable. Doesnt make it right, does it?

I suppose that depends how one defines 'right'. If right means 'legal', then SSM is right. However, most would argue that the concepts of 'right' & 'wrong' are moral positions that are above the law, so to speak. This interpretation can be further broken down into relativism and universalism. In the case of the former, whether it's right or wrong depends on the individual's point of view. In the latter, right and wrong are universally applied according to Natural Law with no allowance for individual belief. Funny thing about universalism is that no-ne can say for sure what the Natural Law is, yet most people believe that their interpretation is the correct one.

So take theft, it is illegal and, therefore, legally wrong. It is possible, however, that one might consider it 'wrong' to charge exorbitant amounts of money for 1s and 0s. In fact, buying and selling for profit (exploitive capitalism) might be considered morally wrong - whether that justifies theft is an open question. What do you do when the law disagrees with your belief?

[Rufus]

How about a simple definition of wrong. "Does it do harm to self or others??"

That seems a quick way to see it.

Applied to software manufacturers, the answer is yes.
As far as capitalism is concerned, if you dont NEED to buy an expensive item, the price cant harm you!
Relativism leads to anarchy, yet choice under the guidance of wisdom must exist. Universalism, (as you call it), is a non existent control reference, unless centred on a true belief.
What is a true belief? I'm not going there, but you know what I believe from other threads.

I should say again, dont take me too seriously, I'm a stirrer, who enjoys a punch-up!

[noisynoodle]

Excuse me if this has already been said, but I think it's all about people's perception of the likelihood of being caught and punished for their "crime".
It's very easy to download and use software in the comfort of your own home and maybe come up with a 1001 reason that it's OK to do so, but if those same people had to walk into a shop and literally steal a boxed copy of the same product, running the risk of arrest and the subsequent embarrassment and punishment then software theft would diminish to almost nothing overnight.

--NN

[EnglishBob]

I wonder how many people that moralize on software piracy and theft get in their car and break the speed limit every single day? While it may seen as trivial and inconsequential the results of doing an extra 5 mph are MUCH more significant than pirating software if you hit a pedestrian.

How many people file tax returns with somewhat vague figures on claims and allowances? I worked as an accountant for 13 years..... even the local pastor was less than accurate on his taxes.

[noisynoodle]

Ah, yes, but aren't these infringements committed for just the same reasons? The motorist doing an extra 5 mph thinks that he won't be caught and that he's unlikely to hit a pedestrian, same for inaccurate tax returns....but put the motorist where there's a speed camera and he WILL stay within the limit, much as the software thief won't physically steal boxes from shelves where he can be seen.
Human nature seems to dictate that for the most part if we don't personally feel that a law is just or that the consequence of breaking it will impact us personally then we "get away with" what we can and create our own justifications for it. We might say that certain software packages are vastly overpriced, that we can't afford them etc, but in reality lots of things are overpriced or outside our resources. However, as it's so much harder to, for instance, simply walk into a shop and steal a 36" Widescreen TV and be undetected we draw the line at that.
As the old saying goes: "Two wrongs don't make a right"!

--NN

[Polly]

NN and/or Rufus.

Please could you have a look over at Ian's place. There's a chap asking for opinions and advice about buying an *istD so he can use his collection of lenses. I've done my best with a response but I'd really appreciate one or both of you going over there to add to what I've said.

Thanks

Pol

[Rufus]

Havent seen much of you here Pol.
Did I scare you?? :/

[Polly]

Havent seen much of you here Pol.
Did I scare you?? :/

Scare me? you know you do. I'm absolutely terrified of dogs that yap at me and nip my ankles! :o :x

I'm in and out of here from time to time - maybe you just haven't been looking in the right places - or maybe those 8" legs ain't high enough to let you see all the threads near the top?

BTW - I finally got around to upgrading to photoshopCS and also updated the RAW plugin needed for the istD. I haven't had much time to try it out yet, either the new features of the proggie or the RAW - but I wondered which you and NN prefer....... just as a matter of interest. C1 or the PS-CS RAW plugin? Are there any significant differences?

I never did get around to trying C1. In fact - I've never even installed the *istD software that came with the camera yet. I just d/l directly from the CF cards.

Pol

[noisynoodle]

Hi Pol

I always download straight from the card with Windows Explorer too. As far as Raw converters go I prefer C1 to Photoshop, but that may be just about familiarity as I've been using C1 ever since they made a version with Pentax Raw support. The only other thing is that C1 seems to be better at handling reds than the Photoshop Raw plug-in. Probably something that is easily overcome with regular use, but as I like C1 so much and already know how to use it to best effect I'm afraid I'm just too lazy to spend time learning to get the best out of the Photoshop Raw converter!

--NN

[Polly]

Hi Pol

I always download straight from the card with Windows Explorer too. As far as Raw converters go I prefer C1 to Photoshop, but that may be just about familiarity as I've been using C1 ever since they made a version with Pentax Raw support. The only other thing is that C1 seems to be better at handling reds than the Photoshop Raw plug-in. Probably something that is easily overcome with regular use, but as I like C1 so much and already know how to use it to best effect I'm afraid I'm just too lazy to spend time learning to get the best out of the Photoshop Raw converter!

--NN

Thanks for the reply .... also for the replies and support in the other place. Good outcome too - he's buying the camera and I'm sure he'll love it.

As I've only just got a Raw converter for the first time I may as well stick with it, the one in CS, as I'm used to PS anyway. I was considering getting C1 for a while but I prefer to have most things in the one proggie if possible. That Optikverve (Virtual Photographer) is a very good filter plugin to add to your Photoshop, if you don't have it already.
Get it from HERE

Polly

[EnglishBob]

Thanks for the heads up polly, this looks very useful.

[Rufus]

I just need to say:

I am much better at eating than anyone else here. Much.

I am also a fine runner and barker.

I can manipulate fine instruments with paws and teeth too.

Jealous?? :o

[Polly]

I just need to say:

I am much better at eating than anyone else here. Much.

I am also a fine runner and barker.

I can manipulate fine instruments with paws and teeth too.

Jealous?? :o

Jealous? Moi?

No. I'd hate having to shove my face in a bowl of water and swilling my tongue in it every time I wanted a drink

Now leave me alone - I'm busy trolling elsewhere, in a sweet, gentle and subtle sort of way of course


Pol

[Toad]

Can we just agree to accept that Rufus has won the monthly award for the most posts on a single thread, and end this pointless meandering mess?

[Rufus]

Now Mr Toad.

Dont start a fight 'eh? It is Christmas, you know. Remember it wasnt just me. A word association thread kicked off too. That had less to do with photography than this one.


Be nice. I have tried to be.